Max Stirner e a crítica da economia política

Commonly known as Max Stirner, Johann Caspar Schmidt attained considerable recognition as pedagogue and culture critic, but most of all as a philosopher of the German Vormärz. However, it is a less known fact that Stirner was also a translator and publisher of important works in the domain of economy, an activity in which he distinguished himself for being a profound connoisseur of literature on economic theory of his own time.

Liberdade de imprensa, censura e dominação na crítica de Max Stirner

Um dos pilares mais visíveis de um Estado de Direito democrático, e seu requisito consensual, é a exigência de liberdade de imprensa. Mas para Max Stirner esse gesto de exigir, tão caro ao liberalismo político, é a própria negação da liberdade. Esta não é uma dádiva, nem uma concessão ou permissão do Estado que a outorga. A liberdade de Imprensa só é acessível através da conquista, da apropriação, tornando-se propriedade do indivíduo ao ser por ele reclamada. Hoje, qualquer um no mundo desenvolvido tem a força e os meios ao seu dispor para se apropriar da liberdade de imprensa, tal como preconizava Max Stirner. Mais de dois séculos depois do claim de Stirner, publicar na web interactiva cumpre quase todos os requisitos que este colocava ao pleno exercício da liberdade de imprensa.

A pergunta de Feuerbach a Stirner: “Que significa ‘ser um indivíduo’?”

Polémica complexa, o debate entre Max Stirner e Ludwig Feuerbach é certamente um dos mais interessantes na história das ideias contemporâneas e ultrapassa, pela fecundidade nele contida, o curto período temporal em que se desenrolou. O artigo considera a polémica sob um aspecto particular: a compreensão da categoria de indivíduo, mostrando a incompatibilidade entre o indivíduo-Único de (Stirner) e o indivíduo como ser em relação (Feuerbach)

DIE GESETZLOSIGKEIT UND EIGENGESETZLICHKEIT STIRNERS UND SIMMELS INDIVIDUELLES GESETZ. STIRNERS EINFLUSS AUF SIMMEL UND DESSEN STIRNER-REZEPTION

In most of his published works, Georg Simmel dealt with themes which were also motives of concern for Stirner, such as the One and society, the individual and genre, social formations and domination, the problem of duty, egoism versus communism. Contradictions and parallelisms to Stirnerian motifs can be found in Simmel’s thought since its early stages. Starting with an analysis of whether or not these are direct references to Stirner, this paper intends to show the relation between these thinkers and the possibility of a direct influence on Simmel by Stirner, namely in regards to their common idea of “individual law”.

“WIE HAST DU’S MIT DER RELIGION?” RELIGIONSTHEORIE UND -KRITIK NACH STIRNER

Schon vor Friedrich Nietzsche hat Max Stirner mit großem Gestus den Tod Gottes herausgeschrie(b)en und den Schleier des Geisterreiches hinweg gezogen. Religionskritik nach Stirner, die einer abgeklärten Aufklärung folgt, kann danach eigentlich nur zweierlei: Zum einen erklären, wie Der Mensch sich seine Religion und seine Götter erschafft (hat): das erledigt Gunnar Heinsohn. Und zum Zweiten aufzuzeigen: Welche funktionalen Äquivalente sich im Religiösen dem Menschen auftun – frei nach Feuerbach: Die Wahrheit der Religion ist das Bedürfnis nach ihr. Das freie Stirnersche Ich, das rational um die Nichtexistenz Gottes weiß, wählt sich seinen je eigenen Gott oder, ist es stark genug, kann es auch lassen.

Stirner – on the brink of scientific thought

Stirner and Feyerabend, despite being historically a hundred and fifty years apart, seem to have been of the same mind in revolting against the methodological explaining of what cannot methodologically be explained. Stirner attempted an explanation in a more intuitive version, Feyerabend in a more sophisticated one. For both thinkers it is obviously important to sustain dissent with the assumption that method is the one and only vital promoter of scientific progress. They equally voice the opinion that, despite science itself producing inconsistencies as well as results, its proceedings nonetheless follow a certain rationale. But to codify a definite approach to phenomena or matter i.e. to establish a definite method for taking a look into things turns science into religion and scientists into believers. As a result no new insights are to be gained.

Max Stirner’s critiques of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon

Max Stirner's critique of Proudhon’s thoughts in the context of their young Hegelian reception Very early on, the works and ideas of the French socialist P.J.-Proudhon were discussed in the circle of the German young Hegelians. Also, Max Stirner mentioned him several times in Der Einzige und sein Eigentum. His critique of Proudhon’s thoughts is very important for his own definition and confrontation with the concept of property. The article analyses the different levels of his examination with this concept.